IN-BOX; In Braun Case, Different Meanings of Flawed

Published: March 4, 2012

To the Sports Editor

Re ''Braun Blasts 'Flawed' Testing Process,'' Feb. 25: It appears that Ryan Braun's self-serving statement had more omissions, misstatements, exaggerations and innuendos than fact, including his failure to mention that
the collector's son is an employee of the testing company whose job is to chaperon players during testing. What could be more appropriate to ensure privacy?

His use of the word ''innocent'' does not stand the test, either.

Edmund M. Reilly

Nutley, N.J.

To the Sports Editor:

A far deeper lesson can be taken from the Ryan Braun debacle, one that he stated but that everyone ignored. The fatal flaw in the process is its core assumption that one is guilty until proved innocent. This violates the very core of the American ideal
by forcing the accused to do that most daunting of evidentiary tasks: prove a negative.

A laboratory test concluded that a urine sample ascribed to Braun demonstrated an elevated level of banned substance. Given that one fact, we are to ignore all evidence and all reason and condemn the accused unless he can show, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that he is innocent.

This is not just about Braun. It is not even just about baseball. It is a warning to us all to recommit to the American ideal that everyone has inalienable rights and that nobody is allowed to ignore them.

Michael H. Gillick

Milwaukee

To the Sports Editor:

Re ''Braun's Name Is Cleared, but Questions Linger,'' Feb. 24: Neither Major League Baseball nor Ryan Braun can prove or disprove tampering. This is what made Braun's recitation of his physical performance statistics as regularly
monitored and documented by the Milwaukee Brewers compelling. In any scientific inquiry, it is normal to throw out the highest and lowest responses as anomalous, particularly when those responses have not reoccurred
with anyone over time.

If baseball is going to engage in science, it should be more concerned when a collector breaks protocol. In this instance, it is the collector's excuses for his behavior that do not stand scrutiny and ultimately vindicate Braun.

To anyone who is both a fan of baseball and scientific inquiry, Ryan Braun is innocent. Baseball's guilt on the other hand, for defamation of character and sloppy science, is again irrefutable.